Cults

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 2:08 pm
Subject: Cults

Dottie's mention of the Feminine made me think
of the Roman Catholic "Cult of Mary". From what I once
read, this cult emerged during the Middle Ages sometime. Perhaps
someone closer to Catholicism can enlighten us about this.

A cult means a door that is being opened to
the spiritual world, to divinity; a bridge across the threshold
somehow. Rituals are often involved. In this sense, the Roman
Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Church and the anthroposophical
Christian Community Church are cults when they ideed open this
door for people.

The word "cult" also has a derogatory
meaning in our age. In this sense, we're talking about false
cults. A door to divinity is promised, but the prize for the
faithful is the gulag instead. Unfortunately, this is the only
association many people make when they hear the word "cult."

Any thoughts on this? And what about the Cult
of Catherine and the Cult of Peter - where do they fit in?

Dottie's mention of the Feminine made me
think of the Roman Catholic "Cult of Mary". From what
I once read, this cult emerged during the Middle Ages sometime.
Perhaps someone closer to Catholicism can enlighten us about
this.

Dear Tarjei,

Mr. Bock relates Dr. Steiner saying the cult
of Mary began around 1200 at the same times cities were being
born so to speak. Also the Holy Spirit was in the beginning related
to Mary but that had way since passed away and especially it
seems according to Mr. Bock at around the time that the Catholic
Church decreed that we were only body and soul which was in 869.
So the Holy Spirit was negated in relations to Mary.

In actuality the Gnostics knew it at the beginning
of Christianity and alot of this worship had to do with their
being massacered by other Christ followers. Not only that but
in all the ancient religions or spirit streams there seems to
have been an understanding of the Feminine God and her relations
to Sophia. It is again the Isis/Orisis/Horus connection that
rides through history and along side of Sophia.

If you have not read this little book by Bock
I highly recommend it. It's small but packs a big wallop.

In the way you speak of the cult of Catherine
it seems to me that we would be following the same idea of ancient
christians who anihilated people of a similar following because
they saw it differently. It was not enough to debate it one had
to make sure the others who felt differently paid a price.

In the way you speak of the cult of Catherine
it seems to me that we would be following the same idea of ancient
christians who anihilated people of a similar following because
they saw it differently. It was not enough to debate it one had
to make sure the others who felt differently paid a price.

I'm stunned and speechless, but I'll give
it a try:

Seriously, Dottie:

Who has tried to annihilate Catherine MacCoun,
and how? You speak of her as if she is Joan of Arc and as though
criticizing her means annihilating her, i.e. if it's something
she won't survive. The "cult of Catherine" means she
is (or has been) surrounded by blind supporters, just like the
"cult of Peter," which was your own coinage.

There are some clear similarities, aren't
there, between these two cults, of Catherine and of Peter? They
both endeavor to smear Rudolf Steiner's personal character one
way or another, by labelling him as a racist and fascist, or
as a ferocious sado-masochistic abuser of women. There is a lot
of garbage to dig from here. There were even rumors that Steiner
had murdered his first wife through astral strangulation, and
all that talk about him being a member of OTO and about he and
Marie performing sexual magic rites on female students -

Look, Staudenmaier's claim that Steiner was
a pan-Germanist pales in comparison! So I really don't understand
why you're so up in arms about the cult of Peter and say that
any talk of the cult of Catherine is a persecution, because it's
crucifying her. So please accept that she thinks and feels "differently"
concerning such rumors about Steiner! Hello?

Is criticism of an author's work and of admiring
it blindly the equivalence of annihilating someone?

In the way you speak of the cult of Catherine
it seems to me that we would be following the same idea of ancient
christians who anihilated people of a similar following because
they saw it differently. It was not enough to debate it one had
to make sure the others who felt differently paid a price.

Tarjei wrote:

I'm stunned and speechless, but I'll give
it a try:

Dottie

Well that would be a first.

Tarjei:

Seriously, Dottie:

Who has tried to annihilate Catherine MacCoun,
and how? You speak of her as if she is Joan of Arc and as though
criticizing her means annihilating her, i.e. if it's something
she won't survive.

Dear Tarjei I am speaking about you. Now you
may not be aware that words you used to describe the author at
times were just terrible. You weren't speaking of the article
mostly you were way way personal towards her person. And my worry
was if I did not comment at least to the best of my ability I
would be doing you and her a disservice not to mention letting
that which lives within me down by not speaking up.

Catherine is not here cruscading in the skirt
of Joan of Arc. Nor is she actively pursing the promotion of
this article. I am put in the position to stick up for the good
debate versus the one that knocks the breath out of people in
a disregarding manner. And to me this is my Michael duty.

Tarjei:

The "cult of Catherine" means
she is (or has been) surrounded by blind supporters, just like
the "cult of Peter," which was your own coinage.

Dottie

Wrong. This is where I percieve you to be
way wrong. Catherine's 'followers' as you would call them are
well learned people. They are kind, considerate, good thinkers
and students of Dr. Steiner and other great followers of Christ,
students of Steiner. These people do their homework. You do them
a great disservice to 1) put them in the same boat as those who
harken unto Peter S. 2) make them out to be anti-Steiner and
ignoramuses. Blind followers really Tarjei, we are talking about
friends in Christ here.

And yes it seems I am the one who coined the
term 'cult of Peter' and it is. These people 'believe' him without
doing their homework. Anything he says is true according to their
eyes. The people who admire Catherines as a person are not in
the same boat not even the same ocean. How dissrespectful of
others. Truly Tarjei.

And most of her admirers and I am one of them,
even though we are not on speaking terms, do not seem to agree
with her paper. But what they do seem to agree with is the idea
that she had the right to express that is how she saw the subject,
and that they time and time again have found Steiner students
who hold Dr. Steiner to be infallible, which is absolutely absurd.
Not even as Saint Thomas was he infallible, nor as any other
incarnation he may have been. He will come back I am sure and
refute a few things or show a few things differently the next
time around. That is the way it works. Gonna have to get those
students to get back onto the path of following Christ versus
him.

Tarjei:

There are some clear similarities, aren't
there, between these two cults, of Catherine and of Peter? They
both endeavor to smear Rudolf Steiner's personal character one
way or another, by labelling him as a racist and fascist, or
as a ferocious sado-masochistic abuser of women.

Dottie

No they are nothing alike Tarjei. The people
you call, and so disregardinglinly 'cult of Catherine' are friends
of Christ and that of Dr. Steiner. Catherine did not endeavor
to smear him in my mind. And personally I do not think it smears
him as it is so full of insinuations and a lack of balance that
I find it so unbelievable we are still talking about it. Let
the paper die Tarjei. It's as if it is tied to your ego or something.

And I really think this whole sado-masochistic
abuser thing is really something high up in your mind. This was
an example she used not something she said he was in my understanding
of the paper. You keep bringing it out over and over and over
again that if you do it one more time I am going to think it
is you who are a double agent around here and want to keep this
before peoples minds. In order to do Catherine in, you do not
see how you keep stoking the flames and keeping it alive for
all to see and hear.

I'd suggest to anyone who carries this paper
on their site or any rebuttal on their site to take it off. Let
this paper die.

Tarjei

There is a lot of garbage to dig from here.
There were even rumors that Steiner had murdered his first wife
through astral strangulation, and all that talk about him being
a member of OTO and about he and Marie performing sexual magic
rites on female students -

Dottie

Excuse me. You find in Catherines article
that he and Marie performed sexual magic rites on female students
and its the first I've heard it from you. And in her paper is
the idea that Steiner strangled his first wife through strangulation
in there as well? Are we talking about the same paper?

Tarjei

Look, Staudenmaier's claim that Steiner
was a pan-Germanist pales in comparison!

Dottie

Way not Tarjei. Staudemnaiers racist claims
attacks Steiner to get to Christ. We are talking about the killing
of millions of Jews. What are you talking about? This is absolutely
ridiculous. You seem to have Catherine on the brain.

Tarjei

So I really don't understand why you're
so up in arms about the cult of Peter and say that any talk of
the cult of Catherine is a persecution, because it's crucifying
her.

Dottie

Oh so you want to come after me huh? Okay
Tarjei and you should know that Michael is my guide. And all
that I endeavor is on his behalf. You are demofying her with
your half untruths and ugly insinuations towards her person.
That is plain clear and simple. Now if you want to continue in
this manner you can but I tell you your reputation is on the
line as much as Staudenmaiers with the half truths to make a
thing so. Now, nobody else may see this but I see it clearly
or maybe they just do not want to see it or maybe just maybe
we have a cult of Tarjei going on where the people who admire
you will let you say and do things without sharing how outragious
you can hurt others at times. Now I am one that admires and adores
you and holds you in high esteem. And that may mean nothing to
you but it does to me and that is why I speak out.

Tarjei:

So please accept that she thinks and feels
"differently" concerning such rumors about Steiner!
Hello?

Is criticism of an author's work and of
admiring it blindly the equivalence of annihilating someone?

Dottie

Okay yeah, you hold me as stupid and that
is okay. And you come after me and that is okay as well. It is
you who needs to take a long look in the mirror Tarjei.

And I am not saying anyone should accept the
paper. What I am advocating is that we do it without anihilating
her personal person that we don't buy the worst part of our humanity
to make a point. Let the paper die Tarjei you got bigger things
to do and so does everyone else.

I think that fundamentally we have not been
successful separating the person from the argument (I know I
have to do a lot of work on this). Catherine's argument has a
number of problems. Catherine the person is someone who is striving
(with greater or lesser success, just like all of us) towards
truth and understanding. The same is true for Staudenmaier or
really for anyone we disagree with. To me, arguments (written
or spoken) are another form of deeds, so I will bring our attention
again to the quote below:

"Even if we have to condemn
someone's deeds", says Rudolf Steiner, "we should not
criticize the person himself, but love him. Whether we really
love him will be shown in our moments of meditation."

Who has tried to annihilate Catherine MacCoun,
and how? You speak of her as if she is Joan of Arc and as though
criticizing her means annihilating her, i.e. if it's something
she won't survive.

At 15:28 16.02.2004, Dottie wrote:

Dear Tarjei I am speaking about you. Now
you may not be aware that words you used to describe the author
at times were just terrible. You weren't speaking of the article
mostly you were way way personal towards her person. And my worry
was if I did not comment at least to the best of my ability I
would be doing you and her a disservice not to mention letting
that which lives within me down by not speaking up.

I was speculating about the author's motives.
I do the same concerning Peter Staudenmaier's motives.

Catherine is not here cruscading in the
skirt of Joan of Arc. Nor is she actively pursing the promotion
of this article.

Publishing an article on the World Wide Web
and getting links to it from critical sites is not easily distinguishable
from promoting it, whether this is done in an active or in a
passive way.

I am put in the position to stick up for
the good debate versus the one that knocks the breath out of
people in a disregarding manner. And to me this is my Michael
duty.

Personally, I believe the interests of Michael
are well served by defending his most prominent representative
against smear, gossip, and character assassinations.

Tarjei:

The "cult of Catherine" means
she is (or has been) surrounded by blind supporters, just like
the "cult of Peter," which was your own coinage.

Dottie

Wrong. This is where I percieve you to
be way wrong. Catherine's 'followers' as you would call them
are well learned people. They are kind, considerate, good thinkers
and students of Dr. Steiner and other great followers of Christ,
students of Steiner. These people do their homework. You do them
a great disservice to 1) put them in the same boat as those who
harken unto Peter S. 2) make them out to be anti-Steiner and
ignoramuses. Blind followers really Tarjei, we are talking about
friends in Christ here.

Joel Wendt calls himself an anthroposophist,
but he says Steiner's cosmology is bad science fiction. there
are good and bad thinkers, kind and considerate and unkind and
inconsiderate psople among so-called critics and so-called anthroposophists
alike. I criticize ideas, not people. If I criticize a person,
it is within the context of a specific act or utterance. Nobody
is beyond criticism, not even Steiner. And when Steiner can be
criticized, the same goes for his critics. And it doesn't matter
whether such a critic calls himself or herself an Anthroposophist,
a Christian, an atheist or agnostic or what. doing their homework?
Peter Staudenmaier is also doing his homework, Dottie. What matters
is how well you understand your source material and how you interpret
it.

And yes it seems I am the one who coined
the term 'cult of Peter' and it is. These people 'believe' him
without doing their homework. Anything he says is true according
to their eyes. The people who admire Catherines as a person are
not in the same boat not even the same ocean. How dissrespectful
of others. Truly Tarjei.

Isn't it disrespectful to say that Dan Dugan
is not doing his homework when he agrees with Peter S? He reads
Steiner quite a lot; he only interprets it differently from us.
But there probably are blind followers of Peter S, and I did
get the distinct impression that the same was the case with MacCoun
at one point. Criticizing her about her writings became some
sort of sin or sacrilege.

And most of her admirers and I am one of
them, even though we are not on speaking terms, do not seem to
agree with her paper. But what they do seem to agree with is
the idea that she had the right to express that is how she saw
the subject, and that they time and time again have found Steiner
students who hold Dr. Steiner to be infallible, which is absolutely
absurd.

As I've said before, I myself am not infallible.
I've done drugs and been in prison and so on, but I've never
abused women or engaged in sadomasochism or sexual magic and
I've never been a fascist or racist or anti-Semite. If those
things are unthinkable for me, they were certainly unthinkable
for Steiner. That doesn't make him infallible. The argument that
he has to be dragged through the sewer like that in order to
make him "a human being with faults" is becoming tiresome.
It's nonsense.

<snip>

Tarjei:

There are some clear similarities, aren't
there, between these two cults, of Catherine and of Peter? They
both endeavor to smear Rudolf Steiner's personal character one
way or another, by labelling him as a racist and fascist, or
as a ferocious sado-masochistic abuser of women.

Dottie

No they are nothing alike Tarjei. The people
you call, and so disregardinglinly 'cult of Catherine' are friends
of Christ and that of Dr. Steiner.

There have been, and there are, many cults
(in the derogatory sense of the word) within Christianity, and
there are cults within Anthroposophy too. In his own day, Steiner
was appalled at the sectarian tendencies within the Society.
So "friends of Christ and that of Dr. Steiner" are
certainly not immune to cultism.

Catherine did not endeavor to smear him
in my mind.

The point is that she did, and she was so
pleased with the result that she published it. So if you're right
about the absence of her endeavor to smear Steiner, she must
have been unaware of it - fallen asleep and being channelled
by someone.

And personally I do not think it smears
him as it is so full of insinuations and a lack of balance that
I find it so unbelievable we are still talking about it. Let
the paper die Tarjei. It's as if it is tied to your ego or something.

Nope, it's tied to the World Wide Web, very
much alive and kicking. New people read it every day all over
the world. Letting it die means removing it from the web and
from publication. Everyone has the right to publish what they
want, and I have the right to say openly what I want about anything
that is published.

And I really think this whole sado-masochistic
abuser thing is really something high up in your mind. This was
an example she used not something she said he was in my understanding
of the paper. You keep bringing it out over and over and over
again

I am not the only one who has quoted from
the article and criticized it here, Dottie.

that if you do it one more time I am going
to think it is you who are a double agent around here and want
to keep this before peoples minds.

I'm a double agent?

In order to do Catherine in, you do not
see how you keep stoking the flames and keeping it alive for
all to see and hear.

I am criticizing it for all to see and hear,
just like she published it for all to see and hear. It's called
free speech.

I'd suggest to anyone who carries this
paper on their site or any rebuttal on their site to take it
off. Let this paper die.

You cannot tell people what to publish. Joel
Wendt has published the article with the author's permiission.
They are both adults.

Tarjei

There is a lot of garbage to dig from here.
There were even rumors that Steiner had murdered his first wife
through astral strangulation, and all that talk about him being
a member of OTO and about he and Marie performing sexual magic
rites on female students -

Dottie

Excuse me. You find in Catherines article
that he and Marie performed sexual magic rites on female students
and its the first I've heard it from you. And in her paper is
the idea that Steiner strangled his first wife through strangulation
in there as well? Are we talking about the same paper?

I didn't say that was all in MacCoun's article.
I wrote: There is a lot of garbage to dig from here." I'm
talking about where MacCoun has been digging. She didn't dig
it all up, just a little of it; something she could elaborate
a little. But if you dig in the same places she has been digging,
you'll find it all, and much more.

Tarjei

Look, Staudenmaier's claim that Steiner
was a pan-Germanist pales in comparison!

Dottie

Way not Tarjei. Staudemnaiers racist claims
attacks Steiner to get to Christ. We are talking about the killing
of millions of Jews.

A pan-Germanist is not a Nazi, only an imperialist.

<snip>

Tarjei

So I really don't understand why you're
so up in arms about the cult of Peter and say that any talk of
the cult of Catherine is a persecution, because it's crucifying
her.

Dottie

Oh so you want to come after me huh?

I'm coming after you? What do you mean
by that? I am simply saying that the "Cult of Catherine",
i.e. the blind acceptance of her writings among people who appear
mesmerized by her, serves the PLANS-WC cult very well, and that
anything that is published is free game. When that's true for
Steiner's lectures, it's certainly true for MacCoun's authorship
too.

Okay Tarjei and you should know that Michael
is my guide. And all that I endeavor is on his behalf. You are
demofying her with your half untruths and ugly insinuations towards
her person. That is plain clear and simple.

I'll try to make a sharper distinction between
author and authorship then. What do you think MacCoun is doing
to Steiner with half untruths and ugly insinuations towards his
person, and through Steiner to Michael? And Michael is guiding
you to defend this nasty attack against his messenger?

<snip>

And I am not saying anyone should accept
the paper. What I am advocating is that we do it without anihilating
her personal person that we don't buy the worst part of our humanity
to make a point. Let the paper die Tarjei you got bigger things
to do and so does everyone else.

As long as the article in question is on the
web or in public circulation finding new readers every day all
over the world, I will speak my mind about it openly whenever
I please, Dottie.

Who has tried to annihilate Catherine MacCoun,
and how? You speak of her as if she is Joan of Arc and as though
criticizing her means annihilating her, i.e. if it's so

Dottie wrote:

Catherine did not endeavor to smear him
in my mind.

[Tarjei:]

The point is that she did, and she was
so pleased with the result that she published it. So if you're
right about the absence of her endeavor to smear Steiner, she
must have been unaware of it - fallen asleep and being channelled
by someone.

The point is she has chosen to keep the article
up - on the world-wide web. I think this says a great deal. It
has been a long time such it was published, and Catherine knows
that the consensus among supporters of Steiner is that it is
a smear job. So if she did not mean to smear him why not retract
what is problematic, questionable in regard to verification and
based of opinion rather than fact, or rewrite a more objectively
stated article that more clearly states what were or are the
concerns of the article.

The problem is two-fold, this article points,
without specificity, to problems having to do with the society
that everyone and their third cousin knows exists, but attempts
to do so by pointing out a very unhappy stalking incident
that happened to Steiner. What Catherine did in this article,
to Steiner, is the exact same thing that lawyers do consistently
during cross-examination to rape victims who dare to come forward
and file charges against their attacker.

And personally I do not think it smears
him as it is so full of insinuations and a lack of balance that
I find it so unbelievable we are still talking about it. Let
the paper die Tarjei. It's as if it is tied to your ego or something.

Insinuation IS most exactly the tool used
to smear and defame. This tool is used daily, pick up a newspaper,
or turn on the news.

What do you think the purpose of an article
written from a lack of balance, full of insinuation and then
published on theworldwide web might be?

Really curious how you do, actually, see this
"endeavor"? What was this "endeavor" for,
what was the objective and purpose? Can you discuss the article
through an analysis of what was written without referrring to
your personal admiration for the author?

What did this article tell you, say to you?
Am sincerely interested in knowing.

As long as the article in question is on
the web or in public circulation finding new readers every day
all over the world, I will speak my mind about it openly whenever
I please, Dottie.

Dear Tarjei,

You obviously can do what you please all the
time. But using Steiner as a scapegoat for your ego I would think
twice about.

Defending is one thing hurling 'speculatory'
and even twisted insinuated words as if Catherine wrote them,
as you did earlier with the sex rites and astral strangulation,
is another, and untrustworthy. You did exactly what Peter S.
does and I find that shocking. I want to believe that you did
not mean to associate those two thoughts but I have seen you
do it in Joel's post as well, regarding what Catherines paper
was about. You are saying you attack the article and not the
person and that has not been my experience and I am shocked you
even think that. And if it was true I would not be having this
conversation with you right now.

You get to keep doing what you do if you so
wish and others get to keep calling it to your attention.

And I do not think Michael condones this kind
of behavior if we want to speak of Michael. It is not Michaelic
to do it in the way it is being done. Michael does not work this
way. He wants to bring us all under one house not divide us through
stupid anihilations of anothers person for a personality that
seems to work with all of us through Anthroposophia. We're following
Christ not Angri Man.

Sincerely,
Dottie

p.s. The rest I left untouched because it
really is just silly to continue this conversation. I made my
point you made yours and we will see how it goes.

Really curious how you do, actually, see
this "endeavor"? What was this "endeavor"
for, what was the objective and purpose? Can you discuss the
article through an analysis of what was written without referrring
to your personal admiration for the author?

Dear Paulina,

I am not getting into what the authors endeavor
was other than to say it was hers.

And I have discussed the article in question
on the Ark and with the author which is part of why we are no
longer on speaking terms I believe.

I admire the author and so what? I admire
you as well and if someone was doing a hatchet job on you I would
speak up as well. And I have spoken of my admiration of the author
and also the fact that I hold her paper not to be a true rendering
of the Sprengel/Steiner situation.

Paulina

What did this article tell you, say to
you? Am sincerely interested in knowing.

Dottie

I found this article to be one that was unbalanced
in its portrayal of the two parties involved in a moment of time
way back when. I found that Sprengel was given far to much weight
and there was a lot of supposing of things by the author. I found
the story not to be something I would consider to be a factual
account or even an accurate account according to my personal
studies and non personal studies of Dr. Steiners work and person.
There was too much interpreting into a thing that did not appeal
to my self as self evident which is usualy a good barometer for
me. I felt it was a stretch by the author, a big stretch.

Just as I think each individual has a right
to believe what they willI think she has the right to write a
paper and also the right to let her work be seen.

And in doing so the author gets to be aware
of the fact that there are consequences for everything we do
and say and even unto the ugly stuff being put on this list.
And that is the way it goes. And I imagine one would at least
hope one would find oneself among other Christian people and
we could all act like adults.

And those hearing the debate get to say when
it appears that the debate is veering to speculatory thoughts,
as to the reason why an author wrote such a paper, and also mention
when it is getting away from the article and onto the author.
No good can come from any personal attacks. No good at all, as
can be seen here.

So if she did not mean to smear him why
not retract what is problematic, questionable in regard to verification
and based of opinion rather than fact, or rewrite a more objectively
stated article that more clearly states what were or are the
concerns of the article.

Dottie

I think these things happen in time. Maybe
had the reaction not been as tight as it was regarding her person
she might have been more open to the idea of pulling it off the
web at a later date due to some of the good questioning by Mr.
Malcolm and possibly others who were really looking to share
with her how the story doesn't seem to add up. And not because
we don't want to think bad thoughts of Dr. Steiner rather because
there is alot of ambiguity around her thesis. And one can not
really miss it after a while with the cross studying the papers
of the community. But alot of water has passed under that bridge
and I wish there were a way of reconciliation but I don't know
that people are courageous enough to do that. It takes Michaelean
courage to even approach one with heart after one has let alot
of emotions in the way to express a thing.

If I were to ask her I would be thinking of
all the terrible things that have been said about her personal
person and would feel almost as if she would think I ask to do
Dr. Steiners work a favour and that would not be the reason.
And I would understand if she said no. I would like to see it
removed because it is causing so much hurt for her and for others
when really it could have died down long ago. The paper was not
worth all these hurt feelings I think. But it was a good lesson
for all involved I think. I can see where it has brought us today.

As far as rewriting and all that I think it
is possible that she did not expect all the really terrible things
that were said. And I guess that is part of life. We take risks
and somehow we are shocked a bit at the reaction. But it seems
there was no love in trying to figure a way through the debating
of this paper. And looking at Daniels quote of Dr. Steiner it
seems it is called for. And that did not happen and here we are.
So now what? Who is going to start a courageous stream that heals
what has happened because of this paper? Or who is going to hit
the transition without handling this karma created and have to
revisit it in another life time?

Paulina

The problem is two-fold, this article points,
without specificity, to problems having to do with the society
that everyone and their third cousin knows exists, but attempts
to do so by pointing out a very unhappy stalking incident
that happened to Steiner. What Catherine did in this article,
to Steiner, is the exact same thing that lawyers do consistently
during cross-examination to rape victims who dare to come forward
and file charges against their attacker.

Dottie

Well I agree with you mostly. And I think
it got away from her although it may express exactly how she
felt at the time. And again she may disagree with me completely.
But that is how I sense into the paper.

Paulina:

Insinuation IS most exactly the tool used
to smear and defame. This tool is used daily, pick up a newspaper,
or turn on the news.

Dottie

I agree with you that insinuation is something
used as a tool. And we have had alot of that regarding the author
as well. Then again I guess where I disagree with you is the
idea that she was trying to show something that she did not think
was true. I think she really thought and possibly thinks that
this is/was a true rendition of the Sprengle/Steiner relationship.
Who knows with all that has passed if she still holds it as firmly.
Maybe she does maybe she doesn't. But I think all the harsh words
would make it hard to see this objectively in a way. But she
is a great spirit and I trust that she is making inroads to where
ever that is leading her.

I guess I tend to trust every moment Paulina.
And I trust this moment and all that has gone on before regarding
her and the paper and her critics and so forth. I just think
there comes a time to heal the wounds and begin aknew if possible
and to stop the bledletting.

Paulina

What do you think the purpose of an article
written from a lack of balance, full of insinuation and then
published on theworldwide web might be?

Dottie

I do not know she wrote from that area rather
that is what I percieve of the article. I think it shows mostly
her thinking on the thing and that what comes out is not facts
rather insinuations or rather her suppositions of what happened
in that particular relationship. I do not think she meant to
decieve herself or others. And I do not know that she thinks
she decieved anyone. And maybe she could be mad as all hell for
me even saying anything that I am saying as who am I to know
what she was feeling or thinking or whatever. I can only tell
you what I feel of the paper and I feel it is really unbalanced
and full of holes.

I can't imagine this author or many of the
other Anthroposophists I have encountered wanting to decieve
or manipulate others. They usually hold close what they have
found and roll it over and over till it makes sense in a way.
I mean as can be seen here there is a lot riding at times on
the persons spiritual abilities at least I sensed this on the
Ark. Like some people would stretch their heads out only so far
in case it got chopped off. Very cautious in a sense of what
they were revealing as things are always changing. And I found
the author to be in integrity even if I disagree with her.